About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22
drones to a green fleet, i expect similar policies to continue for my former colleague chuck hagel to be confirmed, hopefully as early as next week. for all these reasons i have long been a supporter of renewable fuels, and i encourage the further development of an industry that is important, both to our national security as well as to our farm economy. whether we're talking food or water or energy security, let me put it this way. in the future, more crops in the field can mean fewer soldiers in the field. at the same time, as important as our defense capabilities are, we also need to rebalance for the other free d's. the u.s. today spends more on defense than on diplomacy, democracy and developments all put together. meanwhile, in the past year, china has more than doubled its investment in developing new agricultural technologies. those are the kinds of farsighted policies that are enabling china to emerge as a world power, in which we, frankly, need to get back to. as we shift our focus and our resources towards smarter, more constructive forms of international interaction, it'
-level officers and enlisted that are so important to the leadership of our military and chuck hagel's leadership and commitment will be critical to that task. i have met with chuck hagel privately, i've asked him tough questions about iran and israel. i'm satisfied on those points that he will advise the president in according to with -- in accord with those policies but even more important i am struck by his passion, the intensity of his commitment to our men and women in uniform. his caring about them is indicated in so many ways. spontaneously and strongly in his testimony, as well as his private conversations. he will make sure that sexual assault in the military, the epidemic and scourge of rape and assault against men and women who serve and sacrifice for this country will be stopped, that there will be, in fact, zero tolerance not only in word but in deed. and his viewing, for example, of the documentary "invisible war," his understanding that this kind of misconduct is an outrage never to be even implicitly condoned and to be treated as a criminal offense, the most extreme kind of predat
will resume consideration of the nomination of senator hagel to be secretary of defense. that vote will occur tomorrow morning. mr. president, in less than two hours, our country will be without a secretary of defense. at a time when we have a war going on in afghanistan, we have about 70,000 troops there, we have a nuclear weapon that was detonated in north korea a few days ago -- they're threatening, as they have publicly on other occasions, but after this bomb was put off -- set off, that they were designee it to attack us -- that they were doing it to attack us. that the situation in iran with all of their very, very militaristic statements against us. all over the world america is involved in matters dealing with our military. mr. president, i met the night before last with the man that killed osama bin laden in my office talking about his 16-year career as a seal, the places he went around the world protecting the interests of the united states. it wasn't just in afghanistan, not in pakistan, all over the world. to think that we have now in the senate a situation where we're going to wi
nothing about the personal compensation chuck hagel received in 2008, 2009 or 2010. we do not know, for example, if he receives compensation for giving paid speeches at extreme for radical groups. given the two letters he received, it is a fair inference to assume that he and those handling his nomination assembled that information, assembled his compensation, and the only reasonable inference i think is when they a symbol that there was something in there that they did not want to make public. it may be that he spoke at radical or extreme groups are anti-israel groups and accepted financial compensation. we don't know. it may be that he received extraordinary payments from defense contractors, which i would suggest as a matter of conflict of interest. this committee and the senate would be interested in. we don't know what it was because he simply said no. i will not tell you the compensatcompensat ion i personally have received. and i will point out on this question, i agree with senator harry reid. when it came to the nomination of john bold, and in a of members of this body ask
endorsed chuck hagel strongly and enthusiastically. men and women who served in both democratic and republican administrations. among them, bob gates, william cohen, madeleine albright, bill perry, thomas pickering. these are women who have -- men and women who devoted themselves to protecting the united states. they've done it with extraordinary energy and effectiveliness. in this list of our secretaries defense that will rank as the best we've ever had. they have absolute confidence that chuck hagel can and should do this job. you have in this list ambassadors who have handled the delicate, difficult issues involving international diplomacy. you have several ambassadors who have been ambassadors to the state of israel who strongly support senator hagel. all these individuals know him, they know perhaps as well if not better than many of my colleagues and myself the threats, the dangers and opportunities that face this country and they are strongly supporting chuck hagel. in fact, they have concluded, in a letter, that he is uniquely qualified to meet the challenges facing the
the qualifications of chuck hagel. i served with chuck hagel. he is a conservative republican representing the ultra liberal state of nebraska. he served with distinction in the united states senate as a senator, served on the foreign relations committee, armed services committee, intelligence committee. he's a man of quality, a man of courage. not just being able to come and give a speech here on the senate floor. during the vietnam war, he volunteered to go into combat. that's what he chose to do. because he thought it was the patriotic thing to do for his country, our country. and his family felt that way. he and his brother went togeth together. they didn't go to push pencils. they carried rifles, had strapped to their sides grenad grenades. he was wounded twice. he's an enlisted man. he didn't walk around ordering people to do things. people were ordering him around what to do. except when it came to his brother, who he saved his brother's life in combat in vietnam. and they are filibustering him. that's what they're doing. i'm going to go call chuck hagel when i finish here and say, i'm sorry,
. and that is what we will be voting on now. later on, there will be a vote on whether to confirm senator hagel. the vote now is whether to bring this debate to an end. i hope we will so we can get on to the nomination vote. i yield the floor. i think it's noon and time for a vote. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from oklahoma has 30 seconds remaining. the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: let me say that we -- everything has been said, not everyone has said it. however, i would like to make sure that everyone understands that the actual statements that were made by the former senator hagel in terms of the relationship of our country with israel and iran prior to the time that he was nominated, because many of those statements were changed at that time. i encourage the no vote on cloture. the presiding officer: the time is expired. under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to br
and leadership. and the second is do you support chuck hagel as secretary of defense and what is your evaluation of the criticisms of american general since world war ii. except for you and general petraeus. [laughter] >> you know, it's painful to read about general is being criticized because a lot of it is correct. you see it, and you say, oh, that's me, i am guilty of that. we had shortcomings of not being strategically enough minded, you know, you get very focused on her job, your tactical part of the mission, not thinking of the big strategic problem that you are trying to solve. that may or may not be a good criticism, but it's certainly worth paying attention to. but it is a useful thing to throw out there. what was the first one? >> okay. >> if chuck hagel will take the job right now, god bless them. whoever will be the secretary of defense, they will go through this constricting budget, they will implement things in combat. implementing it is going to be hard. something is going to come to ahead with iran during this for years, just mathematically. it will be a very difficult for years.
with the greatest of ease. senator hagel has hearings beginning next week and he has perhaps been the most controversial. we would all be paying attention to the nominee to be the director of control and intelligence and who has himself a history of some controversy on both the left and the right. so we could just talk about what the implications of this are and i want to type with these two questions together. many of us who work in foreign policy are drawn in. in the old days, this is not as embraced as it is now. for those of us who didn't study history, a lot of us remember that all of these inconsequential and rather uninteresting country is, whether it was czechoslovakia of the time or the molly of the time, they were the precursors to larger battles that could have been dealt with had they been dealt with early. i wonder thinking through that where we see things going and underscored the throat open and see who grabs at first. >> okay. well, let's just compare senator kerry and senator hagel to senator hillary clinton and bob gates. by that standard, both of the nominees -- they are
. but that's diplomacy comest you can get a bit of a pass. senator hagel, key was had by the executive commission on china, but talk solely about development issues. rule of law and economic growth is fine. but that's not the job he's getting. he said absolutely nothing about the rise of china. he's also said absolutely nothing about he has had the defense department is going to do with the rise of china in an era of budget cuts to the defense department he supports. it's very troubling, fred has a great way of putting this consensus reality that in a sense it doesn't matter. so did not do the job better and you can take that for granted. japan for the first time in a decade has not just her and run defense budget, modestly $1.6 billion increase. it would be nice to see it continue, but everyone watches very carefully to see the leading indicator, which is us and what we're willing to do. taiwan is a country rushing to the exit to make sure nothing comes between it and china and therefore i would argue the same credibility over whether the united states would intervene and i taiwan str
was devoted to becoming an astronaut to the position of secretary of state. chuck hagel is a wonderful nomination. the criticism of him is silly, i believe. people are throwing that around. it is embarrassing. embarrassing to see accusations like that. if you go back to eric miller's book, he talked about the israeli lobby on many occasions. so i don't quite know what the debate is all about. i think that it will disorders go away because it doesn't make a lot of sense. the trees to care about himself, giving adultery a very bad name. but what was obama thinking. but what was obama thinking with intelligence issues that we would have to grapple with. i could not think of a better scenario than having david petraeus at the cia. that's not what he had in mind in 1947. he did not want to put in the hands of military policymakers. what the cia was created for was to challenge military intelligence. the cia has done its job correctly and that is what they have done on things such as arms control or vietnam, for that matter. what needs to be done, and let me just check the time to, we don't
will sail through the senate with the greatest of ease. senator hagel's hearings begin next week. he has been, perhaps, the most controversial. if he had not been nominated and somebody well qualified and less controversial had been put in place, someone like michele flournoy or ash carter, then, of course, we would all be paying attention to mr. brennan who is the nominee to be director of central intelligence and who has himself a history of some controversy on both the heft and the right ironically. so if we could just talk about what the implications of this are, and i'm going to try and put these two questions together, actually, and to digress and explain this question a little better, many of us who work in foreign policy studied history because that's what draws you in. and in the old days polysci and ir were fields that weren't exactly embraced as they are now, and for those of us who did study history, a hot remember that all these inconsequential and rather interesting countries whether it was the czechoslovakias or malis of the time were the precursors to larger battles that
your experience in research, what do you think of the reaction against chuck hagel's being secretary of defense, a man whose clearly reluctant to send soldiers into harm's way having been there himself. >> the question was about the former senator chuck hagel, a man with two purple hearts, shrapnel in his test, and all the controversy over him. without weighing in on him per se. i like the idea of people who served in uniform having a say in policy decisions in which men in uniform and women in uniform are sent into harm's way, as a general thought. i don't have a position on whether he should be secretary of defense. i do think it's interesting, and the last three or four weeks i've wished my show was up and running so we could talk about this at some length, but i think it's interesting, john kerry, chuck hagel, two men with, i think, five purple hearts between them, and both of them, although, they votedded for iraq and afghanistan, can't say they are completely doves, although, maybe john kerry didn't vote for iraq. i can't keep it straight, but in any case, what it does, and we
's senate republicans blocked the nomination of senator chuck hagel by voting to not proceed with debate on the motion on the nomination to be a ceq writes about although the culture effort was defeated, senators seem ready to advance the chuck hagel nomination when they get back from recess on february 25. republicans including john mccain, lindsey graham and lamar alexander said yesterday afternoon on the senate floor that while they would vote against cloture this week, they would be willing to allow nomination to move forward when congress returns after the recess. quote, i think it is efficient period of time to get answers to outstanding questions would be in effect, said senator mccain. both the senate and the house are not in the next week taking a break for the presidents' day recess. we will again bring live coverage of the senate's pro-forma session that will get underway at noon eastern on c-span2. as always you can see the house live right now on the companion network, c-span. army chief of staff general raymond odierno is at the brookings institution today. he will be talki
of defense, chuck hagel. i am confident and i've expressed that confidence publicly that the men and women of the department of defense will have the kind of advocate that they need as the nation emerges for more than a decade of war. lastly, i'm honored to be here, as i said, as a catholic and as a proud graduate of another just what institution, santa clara university. my time in the universities undergraduate and law school, in many ways shaped the rest of my life, after this education will shape the rest of your lives. i remain deeply thankful to the jesuits for the outstanding education that i received. having gone through seven years of philosophy and syllogisms and theology and canon law, i have been blessed by all the grace and skepticism that jesse woods can give. more importantly, i've been shaped by what i believe is their pragmatic approach, the life, faith and the issues in general. it was bad education and my catholic upbringing -- it was bad education and my catholic education, particularly the son of italian immigrants, that instilled in me the very core principles and valu
council, senator chuck hagel, president and ceo fred kemp, it's my pleasure to welcome you here this afternoon for this discussion on managing the crisis in mali. before introducing today's topic, permit me to say a word about the council's africa center for the benefit of the add yoans, those who are new to us, or those of us joining us for the first time via television or the internet. the africa center was established in september 2009 with the mission to help transform u.s. and european policy approaches to africa by emphasizing the building of strong geopolitical partnerships with african states and strengthening economic growth and prosperity on the continent. they seek to inform with policymakers and the general public of the strategic importance of africa, both globally and more american and european interests in particular. a subject, which, obviously, a commitment you share with us by joining us today which is of strategic importance. we do this through publications and a robot media presence. throughout the work to promote constructive u.s. leadership and engagement i
of assignments for cheadle for chuck hagel's nomination to a vote this week, do you think harry reid made a mistake enough for sydney will reform the filibuster? >> back to questions about the space i'm in. after 36 years i love my job and integrated server. read the press accounts and get the magazines, but i'm not there and they've got a tough job. by the way, i am optimistic. i am optimistic about the congress. republicans and democrats in my view are going to once again make that institution is in port, vibrant and vital as it has been historically, so i'm sort of a loud, but i believe very strongly. i put on a list of people have great confidence and hope to make a difference in all of this. i happen to be an advocate at the simple question is the filibuster rule. that's what the founders intended. if you create nothing more than a year and i can, a, in your image, what is the point of having two chambers? there's a reason why the senate is a counterbalance, with a popular elected official majority rules of the senate was the place for the minority rules in a sense, the proposal to f
quick questions. thank you for your service and leadership. one, do you support or oppose chuck hagel as secretary of defense? to, what is your violation of thomas ricks criticism of american generals since world war ii except for you and general petraeus? [laughter] >> altaic the second verse. it's painful to read about generals being criticized because a lot of it's correct. you see it and say that's me, i'm guilty of that. we had shortcomings of not being strategically enough minded. you know, you get focused on your job, your tactical part of the mission and not digging the big strategic problem you're trying to solve. one is not firing enough people. we don't fire and not generals. .. you know, from the senate, his time in vietnam is useful because it gives you a context. the most important thing is if he and president obama are a good team, that is what matters. though much worry about his policy positions one way or another because he will be a policy maker. the president's policies will go but the fact that the field that they can be a good team, to me that is the important th
served as national security advisor for senior, senator chuck hagel, and as a professional staff member on the senate select committee on intelligence. during his time on the ssdi, you provided oversight of intelligence community, counterterrorism programs and led to investigations of prewar intelligence on iraq. mr. rosenbach has co-authored and edited several books on national security issues. he was a fulbright scholar. he holds a jd from georgetown, masters of public policy from the harvard kennedy school, and bachelor of arts from davidson college. please hit me a warm welcome in introducing mr. rosenbach. [applause] >> okay. good morning, y'all. it's really nice to be a. i already see some friendly faces and some faces that make me trimmer. the friendly faces are former students from the kennedy school like right there. always good. he can ge be in my site. friendly but make me trimmer are -- already smacked me and i'll to start asking questions. when you're in a job like mine, you see strikes fear and hard every day. she knows what she's talking about. that's good. this morning i
. at 10:30 we'll vote on his nomination. we expect to reconsidering the cloture vote on the hagel nomination to be secretary of defense tomorrow. we expect to consider the coming of knack including and the sequestration legislation by the end of this week. mr. president, the senate has a great deal to accomplish. including the long delayed confirmation of former senator chuck haigle to lead the defense department. this week the senate will consider two plans to avoid the across-the-board cuts. our economy the foundation or growth, congress must replace these cuts, the so-called sequester with a balanced approach to deficit reduction. democrats would temporarily replace this harsh austerity with a combination of smart spending reductions and measures that close corporate tax loopholes and end wasteful subsidies and ask the wealthiest americans to pay a little bit more. and would avoid harmful cuts to hurt american families, harm military readiness and hinder our economic recovery. families and businesses in every state in the nation in red states and blue states are at risk because
-span.org. these are the last few days of his tenure. president obama has nominated former nebraska senator chuck hagel to replace him. tomorrow, the senate intelligence committee will be holding a confirmation hearing for cia director john brennan. he was an advisor on president obama's 2008 campaign as a cia analyst. in his life tomorrow starting at 2:30 p.m. eastern. it will be on c-span. >> if you go back to the text that you had in high school, i bet that in your american history textbooks, if you go to the index, you will find no mention of this. if you go to your biology book, you would find no mention of the word eugenics. great chess books, but i didn't see any mention of eugenics. it is as if because we, meaning scientists, no longer believe in eugenics, we don't have to think about it. it is as if we historians, because we know that eugenics was awful, we can pretend it was not part of our culture. eugenics part of american history saturday night on american history tv. >> what i have discovered as i have gotten older and more mature is that the war strategy to achieve happiness in life is t
the state of the union tomorrow. and we hope on wednesday and/or thursday we'll be able to finish the hagel nomination. mr. president, there's never in the history of the country ever been a filibuster on a defense secretary, and i'm confident there won't be on this one. but i'm told the committee will report this matter out tomorrow, and we will move this to the senate floor just as quickly as possible. and then we have coming in the near future -- we of course, we have to -- when we get back we'll try to complete the national security director, mr. brennan, and we'll do mr. lew, who will be the secretary of treasury. and of course we have -- we're going to have some votes this -- we'll line up this week as to what we're going do when we get back after the work period we're going to have at home for five days. so i look forward to a productive night. i hope we can complete these votes, because there's people who've worked very, very hard on this, not the least of which has been the presiding officer, the chairman of the judiciary committee, who has worked on this matter for a number of yea
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22